Re: Celebrate Critical Mass or crack down? (Sunday July 27, The Province, the original article reprinted below the reply)
Dear Mark,
Your frustration with critical mass is merely ironic because what you describe is precisely what cyclists contend with every single day and on every ride, with the only exception being during critical mass.
Cyclists are outnumbered, out weighed, out-sized and out-sped by cars. When we get hit by a car, unless there are injuries, the police don't even bother to show up. Too often the police blame the cyclists for merely being on the road when they do show up, regardless of the equities already in "the law."
Drivers are too often distracted by the toys in their cars and are not paying attention to the complex reality around them. The soundtrack (ie the radio) is disconnected from the visuals that are presented through a piece of glass, which is like a TV; its no wonder that so many motorists often drive as if they are playing a video game, the experience of both is largely the same.
Motorists often "teach" cyclists by bumping their back tires which often damages the bike (and sometimes the cyclist) irreparably. Motorists often drink and/or smoke dope before, or while, they drive; but their vehicles kill others. Cyclists put themselves at as much risk as other cyclists and/or pedestrian pedestrians they would collide with, and take all of the risk in a collision with a motor-vehicle.
Driving is so dangerous that motorists have to have large sums of third party liability insurance just to participate in the activity -- which costs a fortune because it is used so often. Motorists and their cars have to be licensed as well, but motorists often drive without a licence, drive an unlicensed vehicle, and/or drive without insurance; or should I say that such drivers very often crash so that we can read about them (again) in the papers.
Rush hour traffic has no leadership, or none that motorists admit to. Yet motorists all hit the streets at the same time in the morning and afternoon. They force everyone else off the roads with their large, heavy vehicles and their aggressive behaviour. I can stand on almost any street and, with one hand, count the percentage of motorists who come to a complete stop at the stop signs. Rarely do I see motorists obeying the posted speed limit, unless jammed in on roads with volumes of cars that far exceeds the capacity of the road, also known as a traffic jam. Those few who don't exceed the speed limit are encouraged by peer pressure, usually applied with horn blasts from those motorists following, to speed up.
What do we think that our streets are for? Are streets public spaces through which we can move people and goods? Or are they exclusive spaces for the movement and storage of cars. I used to play hockey on the streets when I was a kid, now even the quietest cul-de-sacs are not safe from aggressive, speeding motorists and their dangerous cars and monster SUVs.
Is it funny that you placed a mirror up to car culture in your criticisms of Critical Mass? Because in order to celebrate bikes and cycling we have to take back the streets that the motorists have stolen from us the rest of the time. Critical Mass has found that it has to just fight fire with fire, giving you motorists a taste of what we feel like the rest of the time. A friend of mine has a sticker on her bike that states "all my bad behaviours I learned from a motorist" From your criticisms, it would seem that Critical Mass has learned its lessons from motorists as well.
The original article:
Celebrate Critical Mass or crack down?
Some participants mean well, but many want to wage war with driversThe Province
Sunday, July 27, 2008
By the time you read this, Vancouver will have experienced another Critical Mass bicycle rally.
How many of you will have been in dustups with these characters is hard to say. Most of the cyclists showing up for Critical Mass rides are legitimate enthusiasts -- two-wheeled, earth-loving anti-carbonaros.
They hit the streets on the last Friday of each month, ostensibly to promote biking as a realistic form of transport. Cycling crowds as large as 3,000 gather at the downtown art gallery, then roll through downtown traffic en masse.
Intersections are blocked illegally, as a mile-long pack traverses city centre at peak inopportune moments. Typically, their leaders stop to ponder the meaning of it all atop the Lions Gate Bridge, holding riders still all the way back to the Park Drive overpass, while cars are made to idle in place behind.
That said, the group has no formal leadership, or none they'll admit to. No one to hold accountable for lack of permits or willful obstruction of traffic. No one to discuss the bizarre and confrontational behaviour seen on Critical Mass fringes.
Any number of these people drink or smoke dope as they roll along. Some ride naked. Others taunt frustrated motorists, swarming drivers stuck at crossings.
There are fistfights. Cars are damaged as bicycles scrape by on purpose, teaching "lessons" to those who dare voice an opinion about being forced to a stop.
Police escorts for such a debacle are seen by some as a bad idea. Lending legitimacy to confrontational groups is inadvisable, and assisting people in blocking bridge traffic is difficult to justify these days.
Think back to the recent freezing of the Ironworkers Memorial bridge, and how poorly that was received. How calmly would commuters accept another shut-down bridge, with no lives in danger -- just a crowd of cyclists with strong feelings?
Other options are just as vexing. Moving in for enforcement could cause a major stir. Some readers would applaud police action; others would curse us for failure to support the greening of the West Coast.
A general summer bicycle campaign is being considered, to deal with an epidemic reluctance to wear helmets. Bicyclists almost never stop for stop signs, and they blow downtown traffic lights as often as not.
I'll assume they know they're accountable to traffic law. Many don't have driver's licences, and perceive themselves to be immune to traffic fines, though the feeling is false. Unpaid fines are kept on record, to be discussed whenever a DL is applied for.
I don't want to be preachy. Even if I did, I'd admit to a certain flexibility when it comes to bicycles on the road. Nevertheless, having two wheelers turn on motorists sweeps notions of leniency off the table.
I'm in search of readership thought. Should these people be subjected to an intense enforcement campaign, with special attention to the violent fringe? Should they be pampered with a full motorcade escort?
It's not my decision to make, which may be a blessing. Drop me a line at the address below.
Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer, whose column appears biweekly in Unwind. His opinions aren't necessarily those of the city's police department or board.
Mark may be contacted at marcuspt@shaw.ca.
Comments
geoffrey (not verified)
thankyou
Sat, 08/02/2008 - 20:08Thankyou. I'd not have been able to so eloquently restrain my rage at another's ignorance.
On another note:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2008/08/outlaw-bikers.html
"I have always had an affinity for all things counter-culture and rebellious.
I would watch James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause” with awe. The way he could put on his red jacket and scare the “squares” with his lawlessness has always been intriguing to me.
I bought an old and loud car, tried to race around, but instead of scaring elderly women I was waved to and given the thumbs up by people on the street.
I like motorcycles, too. I liked to read and watch shows about gangs like the Hell’s Angels, seeing parents hide their kids’ eyes from the outlaws in odd clothes as they turn the towns upside down speeding through the streets on their evil machines. I even bought a motorcycle, a real loud Harley-Davidson with a crazy paint job and load exhaust.
Once again I failed in my rebellious ways. I was waved to even more, no matter how loud my bike was. I couldn’t even get any attention from the law. I never received a single traffic ticket for loud pipes or otherwise on that motorcycle. It’s locked up in my shed.
I thought my dreams of being a real, scary rebel were over until I really crossed the line: I started riding a bicycle."
today (not verified)
Biking in TO
Sat, 08/02/2008 - 23:05I started taking my bike to work once a week this summer ... and man oh man ... I love using the bike lanes as my own safety space but once the bike lanes end ... I'm fair game to all cars. The drivers that use their cars as weapons and honk at me seem to be high end vehicles with older drivers. Taking your bike on the streets in Toronto is a losing battle...too stressful. I take the same route by car just wondering what all the fuss is about when these drivers honk at me when I ride my bike. Can they just not change lanes when they see a bike?
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
Grow Up!
Wed, 08/06/2008 - 01:42What a childish reply to a relatively neutral article. How the hell are we going to get respect when even police officers are bitched at? Most of what you wrote in reply is just idiotic hyperbole meant to mock drivers, not engage in any sort of meaningful debate. Every opportunity for community and progress is dashed by short-sighted, petty, BS like this.
Is that what Critical Mass wants to be? No better, and far worse, than drivers!?
anthony
Help me find my voice, then
Thu, 08/07/2008 - 01:20Critical mass in Toronto has excellent behaviour. And so do almost all of the other people we encounter. Which is to say that it does not degrade into the confrontations experienced in other cities. We are, at least, polite to each other.
My writing is meant to mock drivers, and it is also meant to mock the incredible modal bias that has affected our views of our public spaces, including our roads, and how our public spaces should be used. Cyclists are not the only abusers of our roads. We all are.
People are people, and it is human nature to take short cuts, ignore rules when convenient, and gripe about it when others do it too.
The point is not that drivers are worse or that cyclists are worse or somebody is better. The point is that PEOPLE, regardless of the vehicle they drive, almost all do this. And then claim that so-and-so is worse.
However, a cyclists puts him/herself in at much risk as, or more than, others when they do this. Motorists put the bulk of the risk on others when they break these same rules. In fact the risks that motorists pose to others are so severe that they HAVE TO carry third party liability insurance to drive a car.
We’ve put up cameras at intersection to catch motorists who run red lights, not cyclists. We've done this because the carnage that can be created by these motorists is so onerous that we are willing to give up some of our privacy in exchange for being able to discourage this behaviour with fines.
And yet it's who stands accused and who is excluded? Cyclists are, with the excuse that this behaviour is somehow dangerous to others. Yes, when a motor vehicle does this it is very dangerous to others.
But when we look at why cyclists run red lights we discover that the induction coils are not sensitive enough to register the presence of a bike, and that there is no push button for cyclists to use to get the light to change. In other words, the light is broken. In that case it is acceptable to treat a broken light as a stop sign, and run the red light. I do this frequently at the many intersections that I know are broken, and many that I suspect are broken. This is pure modal bias, as if only motor vehicles have the right to use traffic lights.
Pedestrains don't get it much better. Val's found a great example of this.
It is not fair for me to say that abuse should be met with abuse. But the modal bias that cyclists suffer with on almost every trip does take its toll on the spirit from time to time. We all know how cranky we can get, for instance, when we don't get a good nights sleep. Add to this any of the behaviours that motorists pull on us, like these and cyclists can snap. Even good Christians can get tempted. It can be enough to make you want to throw your bike at the windshield of the offending motorist.
Cyclists are the only road users who continue to have their right to the road questioned. Even though motorists have to be licensed, we never seem to take a licence away from those who have reputedly proven they do not deserve the privilege. Instead we suspend the licence for a period, and ignore the fact that the person continues to drive with put a licence or insurance.
Driving any vehicle on our roads is a complicated skill to acquire. Yet we trivialize the importance of driver's education and training, and too few cyclists seek out instruction such as CAN-BIKE. This is part of the problem, as cyclists are left on their own to figure out their way on roads. As a society we don't want to push cyclists’ education and training; perhaps we're afraid that too many people will actually ride bikes on the road?
For too long we have looked at our roads as exclusive spaces for the movement and storage of cars. It's time we took back our streets as the public spaces through which we move people and goods. Public spaces are meant for the public good, not for carnage wreaked by the automobile, this abuse is known as tragedy of the commons.
Perhaps I do need to grow up. I need to figure out how to be a leader in this cycling revolution. Cyclists are the underdogs, the true rebels, the ones who want change and yet are impotent in making the changes they need to have. This is why I just borrowed "Rules for Radicals" by Saul D. Alinsky from the library. Perhaps this book will give me some clues as to what can be done to rabble-rouse enough to get some of these changes.
And this is why I write. I need to be speaking out for myself as a cyclist. And to call the crap written against cyclists for the crap it is, and throw the crap it deserves back at it.
I'm only too happy when I get to have "intelligent" conversations about cycling, but I find it very rare to have one with the modally biased motor heads when their opening volley is about the perceived rule breaking of cyclists.
If you have better responses, please let us know. I, for one, would be only too happy to increase my repertoire. I'd like any help you'd be willing to offer in finding my voice.
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
Bike the high road!
Fri, 08/08/2008 - 02:02You acknowledge that new cyclists aren't being properly trained, or taught about the rules of the road. You fail to realise the role we all play in teaching them by example. Cycling in this city gets a terrible reputation, and your arguments just play into that. We have be responsible and mature, not reactionary and rebellious.
BE the cycling example, anthony. Bike the high road!
anthony
The high road is the example we need to see more of
Fri, 08/08/2008 - 11:41As I have posted here before, I am a CAN-BIKE instructor, and I ride like one. That is I ride as if I am setting the best example that I can. And I do realize the role I play in my the examples I set -- I am also a parent ;-)
My arguments come out of fustration from those who assert that cyclists don't have rights because they don't obey the laws. If this were to be the case, then nor do the motorists. This assertion is a red herring. The people who go on about this need to be shut-up and ignored. This assertion carries no weight, no value, and distracts us from discussions of what is really important.
And in case you haven't noticed, the act of Cycling is rebellious. It goes against our "motorised" norms of society. And us cyclists are the revolutionaries trying to change our worlds. Or at least the cyclists I usually hang with are...
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
Don't get it twisted!
Fri, 08/08/2008 - 20:06"The people who go on about this need to be shut-up and ignored. This assertion carries no weight, no value, and distracts us from discussions of what is really important."
Exactly, and it's applicable to both sides. Don't keep wasting the opportunity to be heard on shallow messages. Bike the High Road!
Your frustration is your own issue to deal with, take personal responsibility for it and don't project it on the rest of the world.
locutas_of_spragge
Excellence, yes...
Sat, 08/09/2008 - 04:07but excellence does not mean accepting that others can arrogate to themselves the right to judge cyclists. First, I don't accept that cycling in this city has a bad reputation. Certainly, some people who resent cyclists will gladly list their complaints, but I have seen no evidence they represent a widespread opinion, nor do I see a whole lot of evidence that the people who object to cycling behaviour have seriously compared the rate of dangerous and illegal acts to the rate of dangerous and illegal acts committed by motorists or even pedestrians.
It seems to me that too many people want to judge cyclists in a way that assumes that cyclists do not really belong on, or have the right to use, the public roads. Those beliefs, it seems to me, regularly produce behaviour dangerous to cyclists. I also find the argument that cyclists have an obligation to justify our presence on the roads offensively unequal; I cannot remember anyone ever relate the question of whether we ought to allow cars on the road to the behaviour of drivers.
For those reasons, if you want to advocate excellence as a valuable human pursuit, I agree. But if your advocacy of excellence includes a suggestion that cyclists have an obligation to earn our place on the road, then I strongly disagree.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
"For those reasons, if you
Sun, 08/10/2008 - 14:22"For those reasons, if you want to advocate excellence as a valuable human pursuit, I agree. But if your advocacy of excellence includes a suggestion that cyclists have an obligation to earn our place on the road, then I strongly disagree."
It isn't that we need to earn our place on the road, but we must show that WE respect our place on the road; and that means responsibly and maturely sharing the road and abiding by traffic laws and conventions.
Don't waste your time by engaging in debates about whether cyclists are allowed on the roads; we are. All that remains is the debate about how we should comport ourselves: is operating a bicycle a privilege or a right? Are we vehicles or spoiled brats?
Luke Siragusa
Re: For those reasons...
Mon, 08/11/2008 - 00:02Respect, law, responsibility, convention -- loaded expressions indeed. Acknowledge the dualities in those concepts and it's not surprising that both sides of the debate claim them as their own. One side seeks to enclose the argument within their framework; the other to directly challenge their current definitions. No wonder they're talking right past each other and driving or pedaling right into each other.
CM is civil disobedience, political action, or simply a soiree on wheels; it's obstructive, anarchic, contrary; it's also fun, exuberant and self-affirming. It is an expression of what everyone encased within machines isolates themselves from: humanity.
Not surprising then that an accessible, public venue, i.e., a city street, should serve as the ideal forum for such a procession. It's also not surprising that motorists, acculturated by convention to consider such a vital public space as merely the exclusive preserve of metal cages on wheels, would reduce such an event to merely an assembly of delinquents, a collective transgression of THE LAW. Even worse, it's a delay!
We should respect drivers' conventions in this regard. We should also respect their propensities to lawfully enshroud our city in a toxic clouds -- the price of progress, don't cha know; and respect that we must subsidize the storage of their vehicles on our streets all the while acknowledging that we must maturely share the road. I guess our frustration is [our] own issue to deal with, [we must] take personal responsibility for it.
And let's respect motorists wide spread inclination to mutilate any obstacle with or without a pulse they lawfully or otherwise collide with -- it's not their fault, blame it on physics. Save your indignation for the Canadian casualties incurred in Afghanistan. Though they comprise a fraction of the motoring and pedestrian fatalities at least our fallen soldiers were ostensibly engaged in a good cause, as opposed to our typical carsuality [sic] whose death was an utterly meaningless affair.
So let's revere motorists' right to imperil our travels, it's the law and we should respect it even as the law outright prohibits, and convention denies, cyclists from access to major roadways.
Nonetheless let's be mature and respect laws, conventions and motorists' imperatives because that's how we demonstrate our respect for our place on the road: we lawfully submit to that place being denied or degraded. I suppose there's comfort in the regard I extend but don't see returned -- mom always said one shouldn't esteem respect from some quarters.
There's something else age and experience teaches: laws and conventions ought not to be respected unless they've proven themselves just and worthy: their acceptance should be subject to moral and rational rigour. But that would not be respectful, certainly not mature.
Man to be 18 again, behind the wheel of a Charger trailing an ozone hole and a sonic boom from Black Sabbath blasting at seismic levels. I was so much more respectful and respected then.
But WTF does all this have to do with Critical Mass? Everything and nothing, that's precisely the point.
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
Again with the Cars...
Mon, 08/11/2008 - 15:34It doesn't matter that cars pollute, break laws, speed, get paint jobs, go through drive-thrus, park on sidewalks, whatever.
Just like human rights abuses in the developing world don't excuse human rights abuses in the first world. You're just trying to hold onto someone whose 'worse' than you so that your actions don't look like that big a deal in comparison. That's disingenuous.
We wouldn't allow drivers to excuse their shitty behaviour by pointing to cyclists; we shouldn't be trying to do the same!
Stop signs or Traffic Lights have not proven themselves unjust, or unworthy — though we're in danger of proving that of ourselves by continually arguing that we're above such control.
It should also be pointed out that cycling properly, heeding traffic controls and behaving predictably, doesn't preclude fighting to change or modify those laws. But at least it frames our fight within the context of people who are already willing to be lawful; rather than a bunch of rebels insisting that they'd follow the law, if only the law was written for them.
Remember, cycling is not a right, it is our privilege. If people don't want to accept the responsibilities that go along with controlling a vehicle (which is what a bicycle is) then they should stick to walking or Public Transit.
Luke Siragusa
Re: Again with the Cars
Mon, 08/11/2008 - 19:01It may not matter to you, to others it does.
Well I'm confounded indeed! In my previous post I agreed with you in every respect, affirmed and reaffirmed my respect for motorists' good, bad, and ugly conduct, even, as I stated in the third last paragraph, against better judgement, and it's interpreted as an disingenuous apologia!! More precisely, it was satirical explanation. I'm devastated you didn't notice.
The point that obviously didn't register doesn't concern motorists' sh_tty behavior it concerns their good behavior, that is, their legally sanctioned prerogative to defile and degrade urban, public spaces while they responsibly and respectfully go about their business.
How does that translate into a justification for us "trying to do the same"? It doesn't. Please point out where I stated that. If I was inclined to emulate motorists in the degree of disruption they inflict, I'd definitely 'bike the high road' and be more vigilant in my adherence to the law: I'd insist upon taking the whole lane next time rather than sharing.
Disrespectful, irresponsible? Possibly. Legal? Absolutely. And there's your argument -- which more properly concerns propriety and decorum than respect and responsibility --thrown right back at you. So if you're awaiting an explicit denunciation or endorsement of cyclists' extra-legal maneuvers, I'll save you time: none is forthcoming. It's a matter of discretion and circumstance not simplistic and slavish conformance.
No they're merely unnecessary and inefficient for cyclists. The operational parameters and constraints of vehicles are related to their potential to inflict harm and damage, their spatial requirements, and their speeds. Many jurisdictions recognize this fact and amend their laws accordingly. That hundreds of millions of cyclists safely plied the urban and rural roadways of Mao era China and continue to do so in Asia without the 'benefit' of signs and lights attests to these controls' redundancy. They're another imposition of the Auto Age.
And no, I'm not advocating wholesale running of red lights and stop signs; rather that these constraints upon cyclists often fail rational rigour. History and experience has proven them unnecessary for cyclists, at least to the absurd and costly extent motorists require them.
Neither does ignoring those laws, as Prohibition demonstrated in the land of the free. So why consider the two methods mutually exclusive? Nothing speaks more to the irrelevancy of a statute than when it's continually spurned, especially when no ill befalls the transgressor.
Often advocacy embraces a spectrum of strategies of varying efficacy, legal and extra-legal. A good gauge for the extent of support a movement mobilizes is this dissimilarity of members and philosophies. Again, I'm not advocating chaos, just acknowledging reality here.
Well, "our fight" is also "their fight" to wage in their own way. The Law of Averages has a habit of asserting itself despite best intentions; those who won't or can't ride competently must eventually reconcile themselves to that fact as they're transported to the hospital or morgue. Unfortunately, that's a reckoning suffered by responsible, competent cyclists as well.
No need to remind me cycling is not a right: motorists do that everyday. Thanks to them it's not much of a privilege either.
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
I missed your sarcasm.
Mon, 08/11/2008 - 20:26I missed your sarcasm. A lot of crazy ideas are posted earnestly here, I thought yours were just part of the pile.
I don't buy into the inherent humanism of cycling over motoring. They're very different, and with very different opportunities for socializing. One isn't better than the other, they fill different roles.
There are definite arguments against stop signs and traffic controls, and they include cars! Just look to Hans Monderman. Cars are a reality on our roads for a long time to come (possibly forever), so we need to figure out how we can work with them to get the traffic control we all want.
It all comes down to mutual respect in the end, no matter the system. Something we should be preaching more of on the cycling side :)
Luke Siragusa
Re: I missed your sarcasm
Mon, 08/11/2008 - 23:56I absolutely do, I'm surprised you don't find it indisputably self-evident.
The physical dimensions of a bicycle correspond to our anatomies; its motive power is our hearts, lungs, and muscles; and the scope of its courses and range is of a human scale. In all these respects it's a more humane technology than automobiles: it abides human limits. Not so cars.
And while both motor vehicles and bicycles amplify mobility, bikes never isolate their operators from the elements and environs nor overwhelm their operators. So lacking in menace are bicycles that it's a universal children's rite to partake of their delights. It speaks to the humanity of a technology that the most vulnerable among us can access and enjoy it.
Cyclists do not have to overcome a barrier of speed, metal, or infrastructure to directly engage others or their surroundings; they assimilate smells, sights, and sounds to the degree that is impossible for motorists to experience. To the extent that automobiles diminish sensuality or deter contact they dehumanize.
A city designed for people is a city built for bicycles; the technology exacts neither special concessions from, nor imposes harm on the environment as the price of its adoption. The preeminent symbol of the Auto Age, the freeway, exists in complete negation of its surroundings, as much a barricade as a passage way; and its universal liabilities, epitomized by smog and traffic jams, degrade the urban environment the world over. Which of these two arrangements is more inimical to a civilized, humane habitat?
Yes, cars will be around for a long while yet. Yes, they have their uses. And a bike is surely different from a car. But in many instances and for many reasons, the one is definitely better than the other.
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
More and more about Cars...
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 14:23"The physical dimensions of a bicycle correspond to our anatomies; its motive power is our hearts, lungs, and muscles; and the scope of its courses and range is of a human scale. In all these respects it's a more humane technology than automobiles: it abides human limits. Not so cars."
And to that end, so are cars. They're ergonomically designed inside to conform to human bodies, and human uses. Both bikes and cars are controlled solely by humans - so driving one isn't less human, or more human, than the other. The only difference is the amount of 'machine' that surrounds both drivers; but in the end, it's still 'machine' (whether big or large).
Dehumanizing cars, and especially their drivers, won't get us anywhere :(
But still, in the end, what do cars' failings have to do with whether cyclists abide by the law?
Luke Siragusa
Re: More and more about Cars...
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 15:43Even the one point you address you fail to successfully contest.
Cars abide by human limits because their interior is designed to encase a human being? Guess what, so does that of a jetliner, tank, coffin and host of other contrivances -- you've placed the auto in good company. Note that I referenced the dimensions of a bicycle, i.e., its size. When was the last time you encountered a person the size of an automobile, excluding your mother in law of course?
A bike is human powered, i.e., has an exceedingly modest powerplant, and is of a heft a fraction of its operator, unlike an auto which is between 10 and 20 fold the mass. The bicycle cannot obtrude or intimidate as an automobile can, therefore its presence more complies with a human scale, i.e., conforms to the size and power of our bodies.
Second: "Both bikes and cars are controlled solely by humans - so driving one isn't less human, or more human, than the other" Another misconception. We're not defining the humanity of actions, we're discussing how two technologies, especially when deployed extensively, conduce to the humanity and civility of our society.
Third: "The only difference is the amount of 'machine' that surrounds both drivers; but in the end, it's still 'machine' (whether big or large)". You should better cultivate your powers of observation: bicycles don't surround their operators, they expose them. Of course, they're both machines what does that have to with the subject?
The respective magnitudes of machines not being a consideration you obviously don't draw distinctions between the nature of cars, 18 wheelers, trains, planes, skateboards and slinkies. After all, they're all just machines.
As for the rest: I'm not wasting any more time knocking down your straw men. Time to retire this thread.
I'm going for a bike ride. <-- That's the best thing I've typed in a week!
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
Agree to disagree.
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 17:17shrug your observations aren't wrong, but I still disagree with the conclusions. Both bikes and cars are equally human. You don't become less of a human by choosing one over the other, nor can your humanity be denied by someone else :)
Unless we're talking about Cars like Christine, that car was definitely not human.
Ben
dehumanizing
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 15:43I love your response a few posts back, Luke.
locutas_of_spragge
Who has the right to judge?
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 03:09One more time, please explain where this "we must show..." business comes from. Who, exactly, does this "we" include? And who, exactly, "must" "we" to justify "our" existence and "our" use of public space to? Who makes these rules, and on what basis? What conventions, as opposed to laws, ought we to abide by, and on what basis?
I try to achieve excellence in my own riding, both for its own sake and because I believe the better I ride, the more safely I ride. And if my attitude has an effect, I would hope it encourages other people to see cycling as a means of striving for excellence in life. But if you want me to "show" something to someone, I need to know who I need to show, what I need to show, and on what basis.
Because it doesn't do to pretend that a debate about cyclists' place on the road doesn't exist. You may not wish to engage in it, and I consider it settled. But last week a gentleman drove his truck at me at a four way stop and cursed at me for insisting on my right of way, and I strongly suspect he feels differently. The driver who ignored my signalling to switch lanes in preparation for a left turn probably feels differently too. So do the motorists from all over the city who routinely harass, threaten, and bang into cyclists. Much as I hate to admit it, the debate won't end until we compel those people to accept our presence on the roads. And like it or not, that means insisting that neither motorists nor anyone else gets to judge whether we "deserve" to use the public roads, and it also means asserting ourselves on the street.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
"WHO?"
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 14:34"One more time, please explain where this "we must show..." business comes from. Who, exactly, does this "we" include? And who, exactly, "must" "we" to justify "our" existence and "our" use of public space to? Who makes these rules, and on what basis? What conventions, as opposed to laws, ought we to abide by, and on what basis?"
That seems like an overly pedantic response.
The 'WE', the 'OUR', and the 'TO', is essentially the same: society. That great beast that we're all a part of, no matter how many artificial divisions we try to put in place.
If you're still asking yourself what conventions you should be abiding by on the roads - fuck man - what have you been doing cycling all this time!?
"And like it or not, that means insisting that neither motorists nor anyone else gets to judge whether we "deserve" to use the public roads, and it also means asserting ourselves on the street."
Absolutely, but asserting ourselves on the street does not mean cycling unpredictably, or having a laissez-faire attitude toward road convention and law, or treating other road users with disrespect.
I have to say though, I'm less and less enamored being part of a cycling community who can't even admit to it's own selfish hypocrisy :(
vic
Arguing in circles
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 15:02I think people are arguing in circles now.
I think John has been saying the same thing.
No one individual speaks for the whole cycling community. I don't have to admit to any kind of hypocrisy. Come ride with me someday, and you'll see that some of us follow the laws better than the vast majority or road users.
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
Circles
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 15:37Vic, I don't really think John and I are saying the same thing. We have different opinions about the objectivity of convention and law, and the process for how one goes about changing them.
This probably isn't the place for that discussion though :)
Andrew Thomson
personally you both have
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 18:46personally you both have valid opinions as we all do but lmao how often do you both got to repeat em obviously you both disagree and neither of you are going to change each others views so give it up and not all of us think that the rules of the road don't apply to us i like my life the way it is so i abide by the same laws while riding as i do while driving of course i still do a rolling stop when i get to a stop sign in a deserted area but i do that when i'm driving too
locutas_of_spragge
Society....
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 17:59doesn't define excellence. In fact, all our definitions of moral excellence, the ones we live by, come from people who defied society. Popular opinion deserves some weight in our decisions, but it should not form the only basis, or even the principal basis, for the choices we make.
But this gets us ahead of the argument. You haven't even come close to establishing that "society" has a negative judgement of cyclists, or that cyclists as a group merit such a judgement more than other road users. Whether or not I assert a right to cycle (and in fact I do believe I can derive such a right from common law tradition), I do absolutely assert a right to equal treatment. If we as cyclists have to justify our collective presence on the roads to "society", then I insist all other classes of road users have an equal obligation to do the same, and you have yet to come close to showing that motorists, as a collective, obey or respect the law at a greater rate than cyclists.
On the topic of convention:
In the end, this gets us back to the problem that too many people judge cyclists according to a double standard by which we have to somehow justify our presence on public roads, while cars don't. That double standard, and the assumptions behind it, plays a direct role in the various forms of motorist harassment of cyclist, negligence of motorists toward cyclists, and so on. And the answer to that kind of attitude lies in challenging it both verbally in forums like this one, and in asserting ourselves on the street. And the elements of that assertion include critical mass.
Finally, your distress at my position or that of other people does not constitute an argument. But you have not, in any case, demonstrated hypocrisy or selfishness on the part of the cycling community.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
locutas_of_spragge
This may help explain why
Wed, 08/06/2008 - 17:43This may help explain why some of us want to have one evening a month where we fifty or a hundred allies who will back up our right, under the law, to cycle on the roads.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Darren_S
Cyclists do not have rights
Sat, 08/09/2008 - 11:32All this talk of cyclists' rights ignores the fact that there is no such thing as cyclists' rights. Any right that a person using a bicycle has is enjoyed by anyone else participating in any other activity, including driving a car.
Paying taxes does not give you the right to use a road nor go to an air force base and take a CF-18 for a joyride. Two rights that we do have doing any activity, is the right to be protected from the state doing us harm and the right to protect ourselves. A lot of people talk about the right to mobility when talking cycling. This right is the ability to move from province to province and leave the country, not a right to use a road or a type of transportation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Six_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Righ...
It is quite easy for the state to stop us from using any road under any circumstance because we do not have a right to it. Another right we all enjoy is the right to express ourselves. It is exceptionally hard for the state to stop us from expressing ourselves unless we engage in violence or threaten to harm someone.
Many have made a case that Critical Mass exists to further cyclists' rights, because it makes it easier to explain away on simple and understandable terms that fit easily into sound bites. If CM is exercising any right, it is more often than not the right to express itself. CM has it roots in wanting to create a political and social place where people can freely exchange their ideas. Cycling, although extremely important, was secondary to this.
Andrew Thomson
Actually a cyclists rights
Sat, 08/09/2008 - 13:57Actually a cyclists rights are the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle has as a bicycle is classified as a vehicle we have the same rights and obligations as drivers of motorized vehicles except where its been to classified to dangerous to take a self propelled vehicle such as high speed highways and those rights to ride on those roads have been restricted to cyclists because of the safety issues of riding on these roadways. As for criticall mass well what it is to me is one day a month where i can go out and ride around with like minded people where i'm not constantly looking over my shoulder or too my side for someone in another vehicle. So its actually become a recreational ride for me.
Darren_S
No rights to drive
Sat, 08/09/2008 - 17:08You are correct. The state can put limitations on you provided they are reasonable.
There is no right to drive. Every Ontario Ministry of Transport document on driving will start out with the preamble that quite clearly says the driving a motor vehicle is not a right but a privilege. While the state can fine the hell out of a cyclist it would be hard pressed to stop your from riding a bicycle. Not because of any special rights or privileges but rather the lack of a licensing scheme for cyclists. Igor probably earns the distinction of the first person ever barred by a court from operating a bicycle in Canada.
"...ride around with like minded people ... So its actually become a recreational ride for me".
This is again the social-political aspect of CM.
Darren_S
No rights to drive
Sat, 08/09/2008 - 17:09You are correct. The state can put limitations on you provided they are reasonable.
There is no right to drive. Every Ontario Ministry of Transport document on driving will start out with the preamble that quite clearly says the driving a motor vehicle is not a right but a privilege. While the state can fine the hell out of a cyclist it would be hard pressed to stop your from riding a bicycle. Not because of any special rights or privileges but rather the lack of a licensing scheme for cyclists. Igor probably earns the distinction of the first person ever barred by a court from operating a bicycle in Canada.
"...ride around with like minded people ... So its actually become a recreational ride for me".
This is again the social-political aspect of CM.
Andrew Thomson
and it has to be a
Sun, 08/10/2008 - 20:14and it has to be a priveledge to drive cause if it was a right every single person that ever lost there license due to intoxication would be arguing that it was an infringement on there civil rights and liberties but as a cyclist we still have the same obligations as drivers and we should respect the rules of the roads and well i think its fitting that igor is not allowed to be in possession of a bicycle but we'll see how long that lasts after his court case
Anaonymous (not verified)
Argument on rights of cyclists
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 15:22This argument seems to be going in circles. I agree cyclists have some rights. I also agree there are some really bad riders out there as well as bad drivers. I know the police aren't there to help cyclists and therefore many riders feel no compunction about breaking the law.
Something I try and keep in mind every time I get on a bike. If I get in a confrontation with a car, here is reality. I weigh 200 pounds and go between 25 and 30 kmh. A car weighs a minimum of 10 times what I do and goes 50 to 80 kmh down my road. If there is an accident, even if I am right, a dead cyclist is a $110 fine.
I can be right or I can be safe. I choose safe.
Lillian Mountweazel (not verified)
More Rhetoric
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 17:27I don't understand why being right and being safe are so often portrayed as mutually exclusive.
I would argue that if you're being safe, you're probably also being 'right'.
Darren_S
Not a reward system
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 17:43"I would argue that if you're being safe, you're probably also being 'right'."
Rights are not the result of some reward system. They exist no matter what you are doing, good or bad. Without that they would be pretty much worthless.
You do not have more right to be kept safe because you are a better rider than someone else. Now if you get injured doing something stupid and unsafe, you will face consequences in proportion to your negligence but your rights will not change.
"Rights" are pretty much useless in keeping from getting injured or into trouble. They usually get used after the fact. After you get a ticket you exercise your right to trial. Wrapping the Chapter of Rights around yourself will do nothing to prevent you from being run over.